How is it possible to stay sane when exposed to this much chaos and disaster? Hollywood is burning — the insurance angle, the astrology and how the fires may have started.
Eric, You probably already know this, but in case you don't . . .
In the Pacific Palisades January 7th chart at 12:03pm, Mars is out of bounds at 24.17-degrees North, in Cancer. In the LA chart of September 4, 1781, Mars is out of bounds at 27.02-degrees South in Capricorn.
The LA chart also has Uranus out of bounds at 23.40-degrees North in Cancer, and Pluto out of bounds at 24.36-degrees South in Aquarius.
Out of Bounds: LA Mars in Capricorn and transiting Mars conjunct LA Uranus in Cancer are opposite, on the axis of the Full Moon.
Also, the LA out of bounds Pluto, in Aquarius, which is conjunct the US Moon, is quincuncx the Cancer conjunction of out of bounds transiting Mars and out of bounds LA Uranus. And the LA out of bounds Mars is conjunct the US Pluto.
Happy to say more, but I would like to have somebody's ears on the other end.
Thanks Hillary -- would you please provide a brief technical example of "out of bounds" and also some past examples of this in mundane charts that we might recognize the qualities of? Thank you.
An out of bounds planets has a declination either North or South of the Sun's declination, which is 23.23-degrees. This means the planet is out of the light and jurisdiction of the Sun, so it can go wild.
Out of bounds planets bring on extreme behaviors according to the particular archetypes. To the extent of that behavior is either emphasized bigger or smaller depending on the sign and house of out of bounds planet and its dispostor (ruler).
The very best example is Mercury. Trump, Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson, all have Mercury out of bounds. Both Trump and Elon have Mercury in Cancer. Tucker has Mercury in Gemini, the sign it disposits. . . . Regarding Trump, I am always explaining to people why Trump is all over the universe with his words and speeches, It is because of his out of bounds Mercury in Cancer ruling his Sun, Uranus and North Node in Gemini in his 10th house. Tucker too, it is evident that he has a beyond normal access to a realm of communicating with people which is extraordinary. And Elon's Mercury 14-degrees, near his Cancer Sun/MC conjunction, is in mutual reception with his Moon--his 2 final dispositors of his chart. Elon wears a concerned heart in his words and deeds.
The US July 4, 1776 5pm chart has Venus, Mars, and Pluto out of bounds. Israel has 5 planets out of bounds (!!!): Moon, Mercury, Venus, Uranus and Pluto!
Every chart I look at, I check for out of bounds planets. They always answer a great many big questions.
So what is interesting is how influential these charts become, or rather, what they represent. Trump may be all over the universe, but in the digital age, people how relate to his incoherence. And I imagine that this oob quality gives him a sense of common cause with Musk. As for Carlson, maybe this is why he makes 70% sense one in three times and can then have been found to have said the exact opposite thing five years ago.
The Sting soundtrack brought back memories & its important place in my life. It might be interesting sometime for you to do an in-depth dive as to whether music makes good on its promises - turning our feelings over like a prism in the hand, dazzling us with its many fragments of light and longing.
I was speculating with baited breath how long it would take for erstwhile Substack writers to blame the LA situation — at least partially — on “Communism”. Not long at all!
I just remembered: I saw "lighting"on Monday afternoon (Burbank). No thunder. No storm/rain. Just as if the sky were flashing. Only twice that I noticed, lasting a few seconds each time.
From my view of the skyline across Glendale, Pasadena, around to Hollywood, the effect was one of the entire sky lighting up; like a lightening strike without any lightening. (Since it was daytime, "lighting up" here was more like the sky getting whiter, noticably lighter) Being from the midwest/east, this sky effect caused me to pause, waiting for thunder to follow. Of course, there was none. I do not recall what clouds may have been in the sky at the time.
As an aside, Santa Ana's are never terribly strong in Burbank. I've also lived near Hidden Hills and in Calabasas where they are typically quite strong (as in: don't leave your kids' toys outside), but still not as strong as what I experienced in Burbank a week ago.
I also noticed how strangly still things were--and have been--before and after the "Santa Ana's."
And generally Santa Ana's last for more than a couple of days; they're more like a short "season." It's just been oddly still since the 2-3 days of intense gusts.
He’s actually giddy about these fires. Yes in a satanic trance. Lord help him. Lord help LA! Satans just set your city on fire as he talks about his legal team on land speculating before the fires are even contained.
Eric. I don't think you can make a good case for the suffragettes as a group believing themselves to be 'morally superior [to men]'. What they wanted is what women have wanted for at least 2000 years: to be recognised as equals, and to have equal rights. That's a bit of a bomb you're dropping yourself in this post.
They specifically argued that women were morally superior to men — who themselves had very few rights. "The vote" was a wholly new concept for the world in this era. Nobody had "the vote" 2,000 years ago. It did not exist. Humanity is usually run by some form of tyranny and most people are enslaved, literally or symbolically. Britons were and are subjects of the monarch, not citizens.
Moral superiority was not merely insinuated. In her book, Christabel Pankhurst, the co-organizer of this terrorism campaign, makes her case explicitly, saying that 80% of men had contracted the clap from prostitutes and were infecting their sexually pure wives. There was no data to back this claim. There could not be; diagnostic testing did not exist at that time.
The demand was said to be "votes for women" but it was actually votes for some middle and upper class women with the correct education, social status and wealth. "Lower class" women who might make the best use of the franchise were explicitly excluded.
This line of "reasoning" goes back to the Seneca Falls convention, where the case for moral superiority is also made — and it never ends. Equality is the PR position. Superiority to allegedly drunken, whoring, carousing, warmongering men is the actual position. At Seneca Falls, the project begins by demanding the vote for some women before freed slaves were brought in. The racist element is now well documented and the subject of scrutiny.
The argument throughout is that there is something wrong with men and that the world would be fixed by having women voting and in positions of power. A century on, the world is no better and women as a class are no happier with their lot in life, though many many things have changed and nearly everywhere one goes, a woman is in charge.
And no, I am not dropping bombs, I am making a reasoned presentation in civil discourse. I am making a spiritual appeal to recognizing one another's humanity and engaging in respectful relationships, not a political appeal. The actual bombs killed and injured people, threatened the lives of many working class women and men, destroyed homes, mailboxes, post offices, train depots, train stations, mail cars, sports facilities and churches, and the terrorists tried to burn a crowded theater and assassinate men.
Fascist means of tyranny cannot be meaningfully used to attain democratic equality. They succeeded in convincing many people that they were criminally insane. Their actions alienated liberals, and delayed women attaining the vote (which was purely symbolic, in a monarchy). Then they backed the prime minister, previously held to be Satan, and engaged a campaign (the White Feather campaign) to send men to their deaths in the World War — itself a moral outrage.
And then Christabel was made Dame Commander of the Empire — she was blessed by the patriarchy itself by George V for her actions. John Lennon, so elevated (to MBE), sent back his medal and eventually renounced being a royal subject.
I think that the most serious problem with the legacy of the suffragettes was to convince people that the vote was the most meaningful way they could participate in society, to the exclusion of most other means of civic participation (of which there were many for both women and men in the U.S. and the U.K.)
In our lifetimes we have seen several situations where the popular vote defeated an unwanted candidate but the electoral vote (a kind of House of Lords) installed the person as president. And then we throw up our hands and admit we are helpless.
Well, Eric, I haven't read her book, so I can't comment on those aspects. I respect what you say, and will investigate further myself. I look forward to your post.
What I would say, though, is that her claim about men infecting wives is quite likely: very few women enjoyed any kind of sexual freedom in that period, any more than they ever had until the 1960s – and I'd say that women of all classes are probably happier now, at least in the UK, than they were before. Some things have changed.
Also, SO many more men than women have routinely bombed and terrorised, and still do and are ('The actual bombs killed and injured people, threatened the lives of many working class women and men, destroyed homes, mailboxes, post offices, train depots, train stations, mail cars, sports facilities and churches, and the terrorists tried to burn a crowded theater and assassinate men.') I do not in any way condone that, whoever does it; but you must admit that it's rare that women commit such crimes and atrocities, but it still happens daily.
I'm British and know a bit about its history. But I live in France, where we are currently living through a court case where a supposedly-loving husband over and over drugged his wife and advertised on the internet that other men could come and rape her while she was unconscious. They did, and he then filmed them. Around 70 did; 40 (I think) have been identified and prosecuted. Some said that as far as they were concerned she was her husband's property to do what he wished with.
This is 2025. Many women still don't feel safe. Many still feel that men have rights and voices that they don't.
Eric, I don't hate or even remotely dislike men. I have many dear and close men friends, and a good relationship with my partner, who is a good man. But I think we still need to be clear about where most of the power lies; and what most women – certainly the many I talk to as friends or in my work with people (men and women) – want, which is to feel safe and have freedom to be who they are, and not be disempowered.
Roselle, I wanted to say this as well: "Feminism" has 'tried' to shift in it's intents and meaning, yet this is, at best "cumbersome" to the conversation. For example, a more contemporary concept is found in "We Should all be Feminists" (a well known academic essay) wherein Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie argues that we should all respect women's diverse experiences, identities, etc. Clearly she--and others feminist or nonfeminists--would oppose abuses such as those perpetrated on Gisèle Pelicot. The "feminism" of Adichie is not the "feminism" of the suffragettes, nor of the Jane Fonda era agenda. Yet the same term is used. I find it difficult to have a meaningful discussion of "rights" when the history is complicated and messy and requires speaking about class issues (as Eric has pointed out) among other layers of the onion that have grown around the seemingly simplistic idea of women's suffrage (suffrage meaning "the right to vote" not rights or equality in general). This is a meaningful conversation, and I too am looking forward to more of it as it's sorely needed.
I think, in fact, that women were considered morally superior culturally at that time in the US by men/women. Men were thought to require the "angel in the home" in order to keep them in line and away from booze and womanizing. This is not my area of scholarship, but is def part of the historical record.
The contradiction is that the prostitutes and the floozies being womanized were not considered moral exemplars — but they were women. So it was only "our kind of women" — those of our social class and education, and marriage status — who were considered morally superior. And to match this, the suffragettes did not believe that "lower class" women should be part of the franchise. So the claimed moral superiority of sex was infused with the implied moral superiority of class.
I am also confused by anyone who might imagine that a nitroglycerine bomb in a passenger railway station or a 12 pound powder bomb (with nails to increase its deadly force) left in a church are somehow setting a morally superior example for those who might observe or know about their actions — or who might be maimed or killed.
Most of them professed to follow the Bible. Who would Jesus bomb?
I must add this. I, like many men, entered life expecting women to provide a moral example; to embody that superiority and to reward men who were equally ethical and willing to meet them on equal or equivalent spiritual ground.
Most of us have found something different, whether it was a competitive or self-centered (solipsistic) nature; an obsession with satisfying material and sexual impulses and appetites; the propensity to casually neglect and even abandon their children and partners; and the tendency to lie to the same degree as any other person might. Not all women, though very few have provided men, children or one another with the kind of example we were promised (and told to make way for).
To me, the promise of feminism (growing up under Women's Lib) was that I would meet women who could stand on their own, who would cultivate their growth, and who would show up as equal partners facing the challenges of life. I expected to meet women who would be grateful that I honored their autonomy and prerogative.
A great many men will tell you their experience has been quite different. Most of the women I have encountered through my personal and professional life have had half-formed personalities that sought completion in a man, and also relief from facing the burdens and challenges of life through those relationships. Most have shown no interest in being treated as equal partners. It's just too much responsibility.
Borrowing from Erica Jong, I am still eagerly awaiting my encounter with the woman who wants to be a whole person and not half of a relationship. I will never, ever be half of a relationship. But I would be happy to be a whole person in a whole relationship.
The Newsom video with the clown planet narrator is wild. Mayor Bass looks like she might have a TMJ disorder or something going on with her teeth, maybe having challenges breathing and moving her lips and tongue around trying to get a modicum of physical homeostasis.
Newsom's unusual shoulder wiggling could be adjusting for sciatica or something. His smiles also seem strange to me--Is he on drugs? Perhaps Gavin Newsom should be 51/50'd off into the Care Court he pushed through and mandated to take some foul psychiatric drug so he thinks correctly and doesn't push disinformation and misinformation.
Mostly though, that video seems sensationalist nonsense, sound bites out of context, with the clown narrator speaking as if he is the great Oz arbiter of facial expressions and body language. Nasty.
Re Segment 1, yes, Trump/Anti Trump are two sides of the same disinformation narrative.
Re Segment 2. I know John Hutchinson. He was a new boyfriend of Judy Wood when i was working with her and her team, was brought into the mix. She shared videos of him demonstrating the Hutchinson Effect. Hardly anyone found them convincing. This was the beginning of the end for my 18 months of collaboration with her, i decided she went over the edge. Further developments regarding her and the use of DEW at the WTC provided further confirmation to me that this was the case. Her idea there is countered by ample evidence, i think Roland Angle can fill you in on that.
The informant who told you about Hutchinson then suggested Dane Wignigton and geoengineering to explain how weather itself can be engineered. What Wigington claims is that HAARP devices shoot energy impulses into the Ionosphere, which is 30 to 180 miles up, heating pockets of air, and these pockets are used to alter the courses of jet streams. Left unexplained is how heating up air pockets in the Ionosphere affects jet steams, which are 5 to 10 miles up. No one i know who has pushed Wigington has been able to explain to me how this huge gap can even conceptually be closed, i don't think it even crossed their minds.
Regarding the chart and the fires. I don't see how the chart specifically supports a particular technology, rather than the general idea that fires were set. Very plausible. Though apparently Palisades Fire, the largest, started due to a reigniting of embers left over from a camping fire in December. Once started, it could of course be accelerated and expanded via setting fires. Eaton could have been deliberately set. But setting fires given the situation already preexisting was no problem.
I have no idea how people think we as a species can keep living on this planet the way we are, totally destroying the ecosystem, and not set off disasters. LA has been a disaster in the making for many decades. Phoenix and Vegas are even worse. Why is no one questioning that? Do we really think everything will work out fine as long as we find and eliminate corruption? Can we really maintain a global system which requires exponential growth upon a finite planet? HOW???
we would be doing a lot better without all the excess exploitation and intentional destruction. However, what is killing us is the profit motive — which does not mean making a living. It means dividends for shareholders above all else. And that translates to every decision must be made on the basis of profit and not in any way making the world better or treating employees better and many other things that could be done better. The obsession with profits by a few people is a symptom of the insanity that is doing this. There is no easing back. And now the machine is consuming what it has created. As Paloma Todd said to me years ago, the United States empire has run out of places to inflict its cruelty and will soon be inflicting it at home. That was 20 years ago.
...we did notice, did we not, that JPL is in Pasadena/AltaDena aka the Eaton Fire. B/c, looking for connection between the Palisades and...why AltaDena? (As in the embers from Palisades didn't blow to AltaDena.)
wouldn't be surprised. so many have died a long time ago, but they just keep on keeping on. sad. there was a time when dead meant dead. now they multiply. like in a nightmare.
Eric, You probably already know this, but in case you don't . . .
In the Pacific Palisades January 7th chart at 12:03pm, Mars is out of bounds at 24.17-degrees North, in Cancer. In the LA chart of September 4, 1781, Mars is out of bounds at 27.02-degrees South in Capricorn.
The LA chart also has Uranus out of bounds at 23.40-degrees North in Cancer, and Pluto out of bounds at 24.36-degrees South in Aquarius.
Out of Bounds: LA Mars in Capricorn and transiting Mars conjunct LA Uranus in Cancer are opposite, on the axis of the Full Moon.
Also, the LA out of bounds Pluto, in Aquarius, which is conjunct the US Moon, is quincuncx the Cancer conjunction of out of bounds transiting Mars and out of bounds LA Uranus. And the LA out of bounds Mars is conjunct the US Pluto.
Happy to say more, but I would like to have somebody's ears on the other end.
Thanks Hillary -- would you please provide a brief technical example of "out of bounds" and also some past examples of this in mundane charts that we might recognize the qualities of? Thank you.
Gladly, Eric.
An out of bounds planets has a declination either North or South of the Sun's declination, which is 23.23-degrees. This means the planet is out of the light and jurisdiction of the Sun, so it can go wild.
Out of bounds planets bring on extreme behaviors according to the particular archetypes. To the extent of that behavior is either emphasized bigger or smaller depending on the sign and house of out of bounds planet and its dispostor (ruler).
The very best example is Mercury. Trump, Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson, all have Mercury out of bounds. Both Trump and Elon have Mercury in Cancer. Tucker has Mercury in Gemini, the sign it disposits. . . . Regarding Trump, I am always explaining to people why Trump is all over the universe with his words and speeches, It is because of his out of bounds Mercury in Cancer ruling his Sun, Uranus and North Node in Gemini in his 10th house. Tucker too, it is evident that he has a beyond normal access to a realm of communicating with people which is extraordinary. And Elon's Mercury 14-degrees, near his Cancer Sun/MC conjunction, is in mutual reception with his Moon--his 2 final dispositors of his chart. Elon wears a concerned heart in his words and deeds.
The US July 4, 1776 5pm chart has Venus, Mars, and Pluto out of bounds. Israel has 5 planets out of bounds (!!!): Moon, Mercury, Venus, Uranus and Pluto!
Every chart I look at, I check for out of bounds planets. They always answer a great many big questions.
So what is interesting is how influential these charts become, or rather, what they represent. Trump may be all over the universe, but in the digital age, people how relate to his incoherence. And I imagine that this oob quality gives him a sense of common cause with Musk. As for Carlson, maybe this is why he makes 70% sense one in three times and can then have been found to have said the exact opposite thing five years ago.
The Sting soundtrack brought back memories & its important place in my life. It might be interesting sometime for you to do an in-depth dive as to whether music makes good on its promises - turning our feelings over like a prism in the hand, dazzling us with its many fragments of light and longing.
“super capitalism and Communism…”
I was speculating with baited breath how long it would take for erstwhile Substack writers to blame the LA situation — at least partially — on “Communism”. Not long at all!
Dude, step back, detox... too much force fed media.
I'm sure you didn't listen to this program but that's OK. It's just the calmest place on the internet.
we will never know the cause- but we will be witness to the fallout
I just remembered: I saw "lighting"on Monday afternoon (Burbank). No thunder. No storm/rain. Just as if the sky were flashing. Only twice that I noticed, lasting a few seconds each time.
was it sparkling, or flashing?
From my view of the skyline across Glendale, Pasadena, around to Hollywood, the effect was one of the entire sky lighting up; like a lightening strike without any lightening. (Since it was daytime, "lighting up" here was more like the sky getting whiter, noticably lighter) Being from the midwest/east, this sky effect caused me to pause, waiting for thunder to follow. Of course, there was none. I do not recall what clouds may have been in the sky at the time.
As an aside, Santa Ana's are never terribly strong in Burbank. I've also lived near Hidden Hills and in Calabasas where they are typically quite strong (as in: don't leave your kids' toys outside), but still not as strong as what I experienced in Burbank a week ago.
I also noticed how strangly still things were--and have been--before and after the "Santa Ana's."
And generally Santa Ana's last for more than a couple of days; they're more like a short "season." It's just been oddly still since the 2-3 days of intense gusts.
*"being from the midwest" --I've lived in SoCel for 30 years.
Why is he smiling?
Because he's in a satanic trance. Lord help him.
He’s actually giddy about these fires. Yes in a satanic trance. Lord help him. Lord help LA! Satans just set your city on fire as he talks about his legal team on land speculating before the fires are even contained.
Telling the rich NO to rebuilding is a non-starter.
Eric. I don't think you can make a good case for the suffragettes as a group believing themselves to be 'morally superior [to men]'. What they wanted is what women have wanted for at least 2000 years: to be recognised as equals, and to have equal rights. That's a bit of a bomb you're dropping yourself in this post.
They specifically argued that women were morally superior to men — who themselves had very few rights. "The vote" was a wholly new concept for the world in this era. Nobody had "the vote" 2,000 years ago. It did not exist. Humanity is usually run by some form of tyranny and most people are enslaved, literally or symbolically. Britons were and are subjects of the monarch, not citizens.
Moral superiority was not merely insinuated. In her book, Christabel Pankhurst, the co-organizer of this terrorism campaign, makes her case explicitly, saying that 80% of men had contracted the clap from prostitutes and were infecting their sexually pure wives. There was no data to back this claim. There could not be; diagnostic testing did not exist at that time.
The demand was said to be "votes for women" but it was actually votes for some middle and upper class women with the correct education, social status and wealth. "Lower class" women who might make the best use of the franchise were explicitly excluded.
This line of "reasoning" goes back to the Seneca Falls convention, where the case for moral superiority is also made — and it never ends. Equality is the PR position. Superiority to allegedly drunken, whoring, carousing, warmongering men is the actual position. At Seneca Falls, the project begins by demanding the vote for some women before freed slaves were brought in. The racist element is now well documented and the subject of scrutiny.
The argument throughout is that there is something wrong with men and that the world would be fixed by having women voting and in positions of power. A century on, the world is no better and women as a class are no happier with their lot in life, though many many things have changed and nearly everywhere one goes, a woman is in charge.
And no, I am not dropping bombs, I am making a reasoned presentation in civil discourse. I am making a spiritual appeal to recognizing one another's humanity and engaging in respectful relationships, not a political appeal. The actual bombs killed and injured people, threatened the lives of many working class women and men, destroyed homes, mailboxes, post offices, train depots, train stations, mail cars, sports facilities and churches, and the terrorists tried to burn a crowded theater and assassinate men.
Fascist means of tyranny cannot be meaningfully used to attain democratic equality. They succeeded in convincing many people that they were criminally insane. Their actions alienated liberals, and delayed women attaining the vote (which was purely symbolic, in a monarchy). Then they backed the prime minister, previously held to be Satan, and engaged a campaign (the White Feather campaign) to send men to their deaths in the World War — itself a moral outrage.
And then Christabel was made Dame Commander of the Empire — she was blessed by the patriarchy itself by George V for her actions. John Lennon, so elevated (to MBE), sent back his medal and eventually renounced being a royal subject.
I think that the most serious problem with the legacy of the suffragettes was to convince people that the vote was the most meaningful way they could participate in society, to the exclusion of most other means of civic participation (of which there were many for both women and men in the U.S. and the U.K.)
In our lifetimes we have seen several situations where the popular vote defeated an unwanted candidate but the electoral vote (a kind of House of Lords) installed the person as president. And then we throw up our hands and admit we are helpless.
Well, Eric, I haven't read her book, so I can't comment on those aspects. I respect what you say, and will investigate further myself. I look forward to your post.
What I would say, though, is that her claim about men infecting wives is quite likely: very few women enjoyed any kind of sexual freedom in that period, any more than they ever had until the 1960s – and I'd say that women of all classes are probably happier now, at least in the UK, than they were before. Some things have changed.
Also, SO many more men than women have routinely bombed and terrorised, and still do and are ('The actual bombs killed and injured people, threatened the lives of many working class women and men, destroyed homes, mailboxes, post offices, train depots, train stations, mail cars, sports facilities and churches, and the terrorists tried to burn a crowded theater and assassinate men.') I do not in any way condone that, whoever does it; but you must admit that it's rare that women commit such crimes and atrocities, but it still happens daily.
I'm British and know a bit about its history. But I live in France, where we are currently living through a court case where a supposedly-loving husband over and over drugged his wife and advertised on the internet that other men could come and rape her while she was unconscious. They did, and he then filmed them. Around 70 did; 40 (I think) have been identified and prosecuted. Some said that as far as they were concerned she was her husband's property to do what he wished with.
This is 2025. Many women still don't feel safe. Many still feel that men have rights and voices that they don't.
Eric, I don't hate or even remotely dislike men. I have many dear and close men friends, and a good relationship with my partner, who is a good man. But I think we still need to be clear about where most of the power lies; and what most women – certainly the many I talk to as friends or in my work with people (men and women) – want, which is to feel safe and have freedom to be who they are, and not be disempowered.
Peace to you, Eric. And us all.
Roselle, I wanted to say this as well: "Feminism" has 'tried' to shift in it's intents and meaning, yet this is, at best "cumbersome" to the conversation. For example, a more contemporary concept is found in "We Should all be Feminists" (a well known academic essay) wherein Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie argues that we should all respect women's diverse experiences, identities, etc. Clearly she--and others feminist or nonfeminists--would oppose abuses such as those perpetrated on Gisèle Pelicot. The "feminism" of Adichie is not the "feminism" of the suffragettes, nor of the Jane Fonda era agenda. Yet the same term is used. I find it difficult to have a meaningful discussion of "rights" when the history is complicated and messy and requires speaking about class issues (as Eric has pointed out) among other layers of the onion that have grown around the seemingly simplistic idea of women's suffrage (suffrage meaning "the right to vote" not rights or equality in general). This is a meaningful conversation, and I too am looking forward to more of it as it's sorely needed.
I think, in fact, that women were considered morally superior culturally at that time in the US by men/women. Men were thought to require the "angel in the home" in order to keep them in line and away from booze and womanizing. This is not my area of scholarship, but is def part of the historical record.
The contradiction is that the prostitutes and the floozies being womanized were not considered moral exemplars — but they were women. So it was only "our kind of women" — those of our social class and education, and marriage status — who were considered morally superior. And to match this, the suffragettes did not believe that "lower class" women should be part of the franchise. So the claimed moral superiority of sex was infused with the implied moral superiority of class.
I am also confused by anyone who might imagine that a nitroglycerine bomb in a passenger railway station or a 12 pound powder bomb (with nails to increase its deadly force) left in a church are somehow setting a morally superior example for those who might observe or know about their actions — or who might be maimed or killed.
Most of them professed to follow the Bible. Who would Jesus bomb?
I must add this. I, like many men, entered life expecting women to provide a moral example; to embody that superiority and to reward men who were equally ethical and willing to meet them on equal or equivalent spiritual ground.
Most of us have found something different, whether it was a competitive or self-centered (solipsistic) nature; an obsession with satisfying material and sexual impulses and appetites; the propensity to casually neglect and even abandon their children and partners; and the tendency to lie to the same degree as any other person might. Not all women, though very few have provided men, children or one another with the kind of example we were promised (and told to make way for).
To me, the promise of feminism (growing up under Women's Lib) was that I would meet women who could stand on their own, who would cultivate their growth, and who would show up as equal partners facing the challenges of life. I expected to meet women who would be grateful that I honored their autonomy and prerogative.
A great many men will tell you their experience has been quite different. Most of the women I have encountered through my personal and professional life have had half-formed personalities that sought completion in a man, and also relief from facing the burdens and challenges of life through those relationships. Most have shown no interest in being treated as equal partners. It's just too much responsibility.
Borrowing from Erica Jong, I am still eagerly awaiting my encounter with the woman who wants to be a whole person and not half of a relationship. I will never, ever be half of a relationship. But I would be happy to be a whole person in a whole relationship.
Suffragettes: Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, ME Too ....
The Newsom video with the clown planet narrator is wild. Mayor Bass looks like she might have a TMJ disorder or something going on with her teeth, maybe having challenges breathing and moving her lips and tongue around trying to get a modicum of physical homeostasis.
Newsom's unusual shoulder wiggling could be adjusting for sciatica or something. His smiles also seem strange to me--Is he on drugs? Perhaps Gavin Newsom should be 51/50'd off into the Care Court he pushed through and mandated to take some foul psychiatric drug so he thinks correctly and doesn't push disinformation and misinformation.
Mostly though, that video seems sensationalist nonsense, sound bites out of context, with the clown narrator speaking as if he is the great Oz arbiter of facial expressions and body language. Nasty.
Good music choices!
Re Segment 1, yes, Trump/Anti Trump are two sides of the same disinformation narrative.
Re Segment 2. I know John Hutchinson. He was a new boyfriend of Judy Wood when i was working with her and her team, was brought into the mix. She shared videos of him demonstrating the Hutchinson Effect. Hardly anyone found them convincing. This was the beginning of the end for my 18 months of collaboration with her, i decided she went over the edge. Further developments regarding her and the use of DEW at the WTC provided further confirmation to me that this was the case. Her idea there is countered by ample evidence, i think Roland Angle can fill you in on that.
The informant who told you about Hutchinson then suggested Dane Wignigton and geoengineering to explain how weather itself can be engineered. What Wigington claims is that HAARP devices shoot energy impulses into the Ionosphere, which is 30 to 180 miles up, heating pockets of air, and these pockets are used to alter the courses of jet streams. Left unexplained is how heating up air pockets in the Ionosphere affects jet steams, which are 5 to 10 miles up. No one i know who has pushed Wigington has been able to explain to me how this huge gap can even conceptually be closed, i don't think it even crossed their minds.
Regarding the chart and the fires. I don't see how the chart specifically supports a particular technology, rather than the general idea that fires were set. Very plausible. Though apparently Palisades Fire, the largest, started due to a reigniting of embers left over from a camping fire in December. Once started, it could of course be accelerated and expanded via setting fires. Eaton could have been deliberately set. But setting fires given the situation already preexisting was no problem.
I have no idea how people think we as a species can keep living on this planet the way we are, totally destroying the ecosystem, and not set off disasters. LA has been a disaster in the making for many decades. Phoenix and Vegas are even worse. Why is no one questioning that? Do we really think everything will work out fine as long as we find and eliminate corruption? Can we really maintain a global system which requires exponential growth upon a finite planet? HOW???
we would be doing a lot better without all the excess exploitation and intentional destruction. However, what is killing us is the profit motive — which does not mean making a living. It means dividends for shareholders above all else. And that translates to every decision must be made on the basis of profit and not in any way making the world better or treating employees better and many other things that could be done better. The obsession with profits by a few people is a symptom of the insanity that is doing this. There is no easing back. And now the machine is consuming what it has created. As Paloma Todd said to me years ago, the United States empire has run out of places to inflict its cruelty and will soon be inflicting it at home. That was 20 years ago.
...we did notice, did we not, that JPL is in Pasadena/AltaDena aka the Eaton Fire. B/c, looking for connection between the Palisades and...why AltaDena? (As in the embers from Palisades didn't blow to AltaDena.)
by the banks, by the banks, by the banks of the arroyo seco...
the video was stomach-churning.
also
is it just me or does anyone else notice
that gav is wearing, or possibly wearing,
a silicon mask?
it's the filler, but yes, the 'real' Gavin Newsome died a long time ago...
wouldn't be surprised. so many have died a long time ago, but they just keep on keeping on. sad. there was a time when dead meant dead. now they multiply. like in a nightmare.